Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize Orange County, Virginia as it celebrates its 275th anniversary.

Orange County is located northeast of Charlottesville, and is the birthplace of President Zachary Taylor and the home of President James Madison's estate at Montpelier. Award winning wineries and breathtaking views of the Blue Ridge Mountains can also be found here.

Orange County was a strategically important location during the American Civil War. Just north of the town of Orange, the Rapidan River was effectively the northern border of the Confederacy for several years. Consequently, the area witnessed countless troop movements, patrols, skirmishes, and encampments. In addition, the town of Orange served as General Robert E. Lee's headquarters during that time. In fact, General Lee worshipped

at the St. Thomas Episcopal Church on Caroline Street, which still stands today.

The county continued to thrive into the twentieth century, although fire destroyed much of the eastern part of the town of Orange in 1908. However, many of the buildings constructed shortly after the fire still remain. In fact, Orange was well-known for its silk mill, which produced many of the parachutes used by U.S. troops during World War II. The silk mill finally closed in the 1970s, but the building still remains and is used by local businesses.

Orange County residents will celebrate and honor their heritage and 275 years of history with events and activities throughout the year. In conjunction with the Fall Fiber Festival at Montpelier, the Gordonsville Street Festival, and other county-wide events, the town of Orange will have a Blues Festival on Main Street on October 3rd to mark the anniversary.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the fine citizens of Orange County as they celebrate this anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the designation of the month of September as Craniofacial Acceptance Month.

September has been designated as Craniofacial Acceptance Month to raise awareness and acceptance of the courageous children and adults who live daily with craniofacial deformities. These brave patients and their families often face significant medical challenges over the course of their lives. While the commonly known cleft palate or cleft lip condition may call for a simple surgical fix, there are many other unique and complex anomalies which can require extensive surgeries throughout a child's developmental years.

In the 7th District of Virginia, a young constituent of mine named Chase has a moderately severe craniofacial deformity. At the age of 9, he has already had 28 surgeries and hospitalizations to improve his ability to breathe, walk, see, hear, and talk. He will need more surgeries as he grows. Despite his many challenges, Chase and his family celebrate his growth and milestones with joy. His unique medical needs do not stop him from riding the bus to school and making friends. His big smile and enthusiasm for life have enabled Chase and his family to approach each day with a positive outlook.

This month also marks the 20th anniversary of the Children's Craniofacial Association, an incredible charitable organization that offers a network of resources and assistance to families with children who have deformities. The association's mission is to ``widen the circle of acceptance,'' through promoting the message that ``beyond the face, there is a heart.'' I would like to commend the CCA for connecting Chase, his family and other families across America with resources to improve the lives of these patients. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in raising awareness of the needs of these extraordinary individuals.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Town of Orange as it celebrates its 275th anniversary.

The Town of Orange is located northeast of Charlottesville, near James Madison's estate at Montpelier, viewing the Blue Ridge Mountains.

The Town of Orange was a strategically important location during the American Civil War. Just north of town, the Rapidan River was effectively the northern border of the Confederacy for several years. Consequently, the area witnessed countless troop movements,

patrols, skirmishes, and encampments. In addition, the Town of Orange served as General Robert E. Lee's headquarters during that time. In fact, General Lee worshipped at the St. Thomas Episcopal Church on Caroline Street, which still stands today.

The town continued to thrive into the twentieth century. Fire destroyed much of the eastern part of town in 1908, but many of the buildings constructed shortly after the fire still remain. In fact, Orange was well-known for its silk mill, which produced many of the parachutes used by U.S. troops during World War II. The silk mill finally closed in the 1970s, but the building still remains and is used by local businesses.

Orange residents will celebrate and honor the town's heritage and 275 years of history with events and activities throughout the year. In conjunction with the Fall Fiber Festival at Montpelier, the Gordonsville Street Festival, and other county-wide events, the Town of Orange will have a Blues Festival on Main Street on October 3rd to mark the anniversary.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the fine citizens of Orange as they celebrate their town's anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if we could turn to the discussion of health care, and as the gentleman knows, he and I have had discussions this week, perhaps, I think, a discussion that could yield the ability for us to work together on the things that we agree on in health care. Obviously, the divide is great when talking about any type of move towards a government takeover of health care. But he and I have spoken about maybe there are some areas of agreement. And he and I have also talked about the fact that we could meet together and discuss that, and I look forward to hearing from him or his office to schedule that. And along those lines, I'd like to ask the gentleman what he expects the schedule to be towards bringing a health care bill to the floor of this House.

I thank the gentleman. And Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman further as to the timing of a bill. I understand that he's indicated that there is no resolution as to exactly when a bill would come to the floor.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman because I was going to ask about the Speaker's commitment prior. So I thank the gentleman for that.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as to the scheduling of a bill dealing with sanctions on Iran, we've had discussions together on the floor and elsewhere regarding the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. And Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, now, in particular, I think time is of the essence that we act because, as we have seen over the last 10 days, Iran revealing its secret enrichment program, indicating, yet again, that the regime in that country refuses to comply with international law or the will of the world community.

So it is my sense that we should, and we can work together on this issue. The gentleman had indicated last time we were engaged in a colloquy that he was going to meet with Chairman Berman of the Foreign Affairs Committee about moving that bill and bringing it to the floor. So I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us when we could expect that bill to come to the floor.

I thank the gentleman. And I would only add that I believe I'm speaking for our conference here in indicating that it's not necessarily what we would do in terms of trying to wait for China and Russia to move the bill. I'm not saying the gentleman said that, but it sounded as if we've got to wait until there is some collective agreement on the world stage in order for Congress to act. As the gentleman and I have agreed for a long time now, we, in this country, believe very strongly of standing up against the regime in Iran. It has an impact on our allies across that region in the world and particularly for us here at home. So I would encourage the gentleman by telling him that our side stands ready to want to help with moving that bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, there is a very important debate occurring in our country right now regarding our position towards the commitment we've made in Afghanistan. And it's clear that the Republicans believe, as I'm sure the gentleman does, that this Congress must be devoting attention to this important issue as it relates to the national security of the United States and our interests in that arena, as well as abroad. And I'd like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, whether he, in his leadership, will call on General McChrystal to testify before Congress as soon as possible. And I'd note, as the gentleman well knows, that Chairman Skelton has been reported to have made such requests of his leadership.

I thank the gentleman. And I know it's just been reported that in the Senate there was an amendment offered by Senator McCain on this very point, requiring there to be some testimony by General McChrystal before Congress by a date certain. And I'm told that that amendment went down on a party-line vote. So I would just tell the gentleman, again, that our side believes it's very important, as I know he does, in terms of our national security and Congress' role that General McChrystal be before us so that we can be informed and conduct our constitutional duty as such.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, turn to the question of jobs.

We have a running debate, the gentleman and I and others, as to the effectiveness of the stimulus bill. And as we all know, back in January it was reported that that bill would arrest the rise of unemployment. In fact, the goal was set that unemployment would not overreach beyond 8\1/2\ percent. We know in this country now we're just under 10 percent unemployment nationally.

I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we should be focusing on this economy while we're trying to deal with so many other issues. And it has been some time now where we have missed the opportunity on this floor to bring up bills that have to do with job creation.

If we look at some of the evidence of the stimulus bill, it is the contention of our side that that bill has not fulfilled its mission. We could go through any list of expenditures that we have noted in the press and elsewhere, where you have got $2.8 million to fight forest fires in the District of Columbia; you have $3.4 million to help turtles cross the road in Florida. These are the kinds of items that, frankly, rob the public of their confidence in what we do.

So I would ask the gentleman, is there any effort, is there any hope that we may perhaps have some constructive debate around the rest of the stimulus money and perhaps orient that towards job creation, sustainable job creation and growth in the economy? Because after all, I think that's what all of us are after.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say in response, I, nor most of my conference, was not here in 1993 on that vote.

I would simply say to the gentleman, as he knows, in the stimulus debate and on down through the rest--cap-and-trade, the health care, the budget debate--the proposals that we are offering, especially as he refers to in the economic arena, are not the same policies. We have proffered an agenda which speaks to small businesses.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would say I don't think it is necessarily a constructive route to take for us to say who was worse because none of us, as the gentleman suggests, likes the fact that we've lost 2\1/2\ million jobs in the last 8 months. And if you ask the small business people in our districts if they think things are better, I think there's pretty much unanimity that small businesses are having difficulties still keeping the lights on, maintaining payroll.

Something is amiss. We've got to be focusing on how we can expand the opportunity for those small businesses to grow again. It's very central to the idea of getting the capital markets straight, of getting our fiscal house in order. I am very troubled by the bills that are coming along in the Financial Services Committee, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, yet more attempts by the majority to impose the will of Washington on the entrepreneurs across this country, restricting ultimately their ability to access credit.

You know, we do have differences, Mr. Speaker. I am just hopeful that we can find a way to work together to promote jobs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill for several reasons. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill reflects a bit of gamesmanship within the discussion over the extension of a highway reauthorization bill.

I know that the gentleman from Minnesota has made very clear his desire to pass an increase in the gas tax to fund a multiyear reauthorization bill. Simultaneously, while the gentleman has expressed that desire, this administration, as well as the folks on the other side of this building in the Senate, have indicated that they do not want to support a tax increase at this time and instead have advocated an 18-month extension of the highway bill.

It appears that the gentleman from Minnesota has, in response, come up with this bill which would give a 3-month extension seemingly to buy time to bring the parties together to the table to agree on a gas tax.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's face it, the American people right now especially cannot afford an increase in the gas tax. Such a tax would hit the unemployed, would hit small businesses, would hit those least able to afford it the hardest.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, our States and our contractors who are there needing some certainty deserve better than just a 3-month extension. Mr. Speaker, we on our side of the aisle stand ready to work with the gentleman as well as with his leadership on a thoughtful approach to highway reauthorization. What we are asking for is a public rejection of increasing the gas tax. We say ``no'' to higher gas taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman indicated, we will be considering several extensions of expiring law next week. I would like to ask, though, with the recent reports of the Senate Finance Committee marking up their health care bill, whether the gentleman could tell us if the House could expect that health care legislation would be moving to the floor either next week or sometime soon.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask the follow-up, Mr. Speaker, whether the gentleman believes the House will be waiting for the Senate to act prior to a bill coming to the floor of this House.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the question next week surrounding the House's actions regarding issues confronting the assembly of the United Nations in New York next week.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, and he and I both traveled to

Israel over the August recess, I know that the gentleman is as concerned as I am about the potential nuclear developments in Iran and the fact, I believe, that both of us feel that Iran poses an existential threat not only to the United States but also to our democratic ally, Israel.

There were some reports today regarding some shifting of that notion, the policy behind that notion, from the administration. We had the Vice President today indicate that somehow because Iran did not have the potential capacity to launch a missile to reach our shores, that somehow we could deal with the threat of Iran. We also have news that indicates a shift in our policy of missile defense in terms of our commitment to our allies in Europe as well as Israel.

Again I would say, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have both worked hard on the issue of trying to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran specifically aimed at our only democratic ally, Israel, in the region. I have believed all along and I have spoken to the gentleman about it, that we ought to be moving as quickly as possible on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. I would like to ask the gentleman, with all that having been said, Would it not be appropriate at this point to bring that bill to the floor to give the President some tools at his disposal while he meets with the leader of Iran in New York next week?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

My concern lies in the fact of the reports out of the administration today, and perhaps new intelligence information is being relied upon to result in a swift turnaround in our policy vis-a-vis Iran which is why I raised this question and seek from the gentleman his consistent position that has been up until now that we do face a threat in Iran in its current capacity.

As the gentleman states, we have uniformed armed men and women in Insirlik, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, throughout the region that certainly are in the line of Shahab-3 missiles that could do serious harm to American life and interests. I think out of that concern, I ask the gentleman could we see an expedited push on this bill to demonstrate that this Congress, this House, is not yielding to this notion that somehow Iran is no longer a threat?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. I think I am to take heart in that position because I do know that the administration today had downgraded its alarm, if you will, downgraded the threat that Iran poses.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding how it is that we are on the floor today debating this resolution. I would like to first speak to the claims made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the majority whip, in pointing out what are alleged to be precedents for this resolution.

As he knows, those instances that he referred to, whether it be the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) when they came to the well of this body to speak to our colleagues, it was as a result of conduct displayed, number one, in the case of Mr. Stark, during debate on the floor of this House, and number two, on the part of Mr. Thomas, conduct that took place among members in a committee on which I sit, the Ways and Means, two very distinct situations from the one we have here at hand.

Again, I don't understand how it is a priority that we are here on this particular resolution. The resolution, as has been pointed out, creates no job. The resolution does nothing to do anything to increase access to quality health care. The resolution does nothing to address the issues of national security. Plain and simple, this resolution does not reflect the priority of the American people.

Now, President Obama came to this Chamber last week and he admonished us, Mr. Speaker. He admonished us to stop with the partisan bickering. In fact, he echoed the sentiments that he expressed during his inaugural address when he said, ``We may still be a young Nation, but it is time to set aside childish things.''

Now, as the leader said, as the gentleman from South Carolina himself said, he admits that what he did was inappropriate. He was on national television indicating he shouldn't have done it. He wouldn't do it again. He also said to the Nation, he called the President. As the leader indicated, the President graciously accepted the apology. I am told the Vice President has also accepted the apology. What more does the gentleman want? That's why I am at a loss as to what this is if it is not a partisan stunt.

So I believe we ought to accept what the President and the Speaker and others have said: Let's get on with the business of the people. Let's try and get over the divide and stick to the course of trying to work on things we agree on, or things that we have a potential to do away with the disagreements, not the partisanship.

Now, this is the bill. This is the famed H.R. 3200, Mr. Speaker, and there are several issues in here the American people have spoken out on. The first is the claim that we ought to be able to keep what we have if we are talking about health insurance. On page 16 of the bill, there is a section entitled, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.'' That's what we all are trying to do for the 85 or some percent of this country who has health insurance.

You know what, our side says despite that title, there are provisions in there which begin to require individuals and their insurers to do certain things which make it somewhat difficult if not impossible to allow for folks to keep what they have.

The next issue that is of import certainly to the American people and to this body is the question of access to Federal benefits by those who are here illegally.

Now, the President stood on this floor in this body, Mr. Speaker, and said that he did not believe that there was any access for those here illegally to Federal benefits. In fact, on page 143, there is a section which speaks to the issue that there should be no Federal benefit for those here illegally.

The problem that we have on this side is there is no requirement of verification of legal status. And in fact the White House, in fact Senator Baucus and others have since come out and said, You know what, you're right. These are the kinds of things we could be doing right now to try and accomplish what it is that the American people have sent us here to do, and they expect us to do that in a deliberate manner that produces a positive result, which means we all have got to do that living within our means and to ensure that we do not break the bank in passing this health care reform measure.

So I implore this House, Mr. Speaker, let's try and get back to the business of the people.

Mr. Speaker, in these desperate economic times, Congress must undertake all of its actions with a watchful eye toward the effects on job creation; yet this, unmistakably, has not been the case.

From the stimulus bill that just did not get it right, to the cap- and-trade legislation, to now the ongoing effort to pass a health care bill on the backs of small business, the majority has put jobs on the back burner to muscle through an agenda, frankly, that is anathema to the American people. Slapping an additional 8 percent payroll tax on struggling small businesses that can't afford to pay for insurance doesn't create jobs; it kills them. Imposing a 5 percent surtax on small businesses, on America's producers, doesn't hasten our recovery; it prolongs it.

The American people deserve an agenda that puts jobs first. That is why we ask the majority to work with us. Republicans do have a plan that can expand affordable coverage in health care. It will allow you to keep what you have and not do it by squeezing small business.

I urge the majority to begin this with us. Let's start over. Let's get it right for the American people.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Thomas Jefferson warned that, ``To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as the underlying legislation embodies the very action Jefferson cautioned against.

About 7 out of 10 Americans oppose public funding of abortion; yet this bill defies their moral concerns by funding groups like Planned Parenthood, the single largest abortion provider in America. Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions per year while receiving $350 million in taxpayer dollars annually.

The gentleman from Indiana's amendment does not reduce overall funds for family planning services. It merely ensures that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund entities that conduct abortions. It is a reasonable approach, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman speak of the prospects of the House considering the health care bill. I would ask the gentleman the status of that discussion and whether this House will be delivering on the Speaker's commitment that this House was going to vote on her health care bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman again for some clarification. Did I just hear the gentleman say that we will not be considering the health care bill this week?

I thank the gentleman.

So to reiterate, I will say that I heard the gentleman say the probability of taking up the health care bill by the 31st is very small, and I suspect that is due to what we have read in the news reports for successive days now about the difficulty that your side is having in gaining a majority in support of the bill. We have said all along, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that there's a bipartisan majority against the health care bill being proposed by the Speaker, and that is because people are unsure about the direction a government health care plan would take them.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows we stand ready and willing to work together to try and effect reform for the American people. We on the Republican side of the aisle do not accept the status quo. We want to see a health care reform bill that works for the American people, maintains choice and quality, and reduces costs so more folks can have access to coverage, and that is not the bill before us, at least that which is being reported.

So I would ask the gentleman, if there is a very little probability that this bill would come up prior to the 31st, and given that he and I have had some discussion about the schedule, how long will we be in session beyond the 31st?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Obviously, if the process had worked differently, I would suggest to the gentleman that if we were allowed to try and put forward the kinds of proposals that we are attempting to do and there was a receptivity on your side to allow for some of the ``free-market principles and cost-control suggestions'' that have been made, according to a Member on your side, Mr. Minnick, back a few days ago, maybe we would be on a better course.

In the same way, I think a colleague from the gentleman's State, Mr. Kratovil, said, the bill is not even out of all the committees and we're already talking about voting on this. We feel the same way, that there has been very little willingness to work together to try and get a health care plan right.

Mr. Speaker, the way that I believe we get it right is to tell the people of this country exactly what would be in store for them by the insistence that there be a government plan involved in their health care.

So I would tell the gentleman, we obviously stand ready to work with him and the Speaker to perfect a plan that could get much larger than just probably the small majority that he'll be able to produce, given the news reports that we are hearing.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman about his anticipation of next week's appropriations bill, the DOD bill. He and I, as the gentleman knows, have had a longstanding discussion on the rules. We, on this side of the aisle, have been extremely upset, as he knows, about the change in precedent in this House that somehow it was okay for this Congress to leave the precedent of open rule, to insist that we not be able to hold open discussions on issues surrounding the constitutional obligation of this body to spend taxpayer funds.

So I would ask, even after the good faith attempt that we have made to open up rules and have been rebuffed at each turn, is it his hope, is it his intention, that perhaps on the DOD bill, whether we could see that happen? And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I think the gentleman, though, speaks to the point I'm trying to make. We are trying to get things right here, and spending billions of dollars for spending's sake is not the goal here, and I know he agrees with me on that, that we are trying to effect the most prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars in these very difficult economic times.

As the gentleman knows, we voted on a PAYGO bill this week, and frankly, the spirit behind that PAYGO bill was to attempt to restrain the type of spending that we've seen this Congress conduct. In fact, this week, in one of the reports, one of the authors of an opinion column said, frankly, we are spending--the spending PAYGO bill that was passed this week was full of loopholes.

And again, we know that the PAYGO bill that was passed was that. It wasn't a holistic PAYGO bill. It wasn't something that, frankly, will do much to address the runaway spending. So we still sit here, Mr. Speaker, and want to have an open process so we can contribute to holding back the runaway spending in this town.

So I would say to the gentleman, just as he has said to me, we ought to be looking to try and open up this process again. We were not allowed to do so in the PAYGO debate and address the number one concern of this government right now, which is the runaway spending. We have not been allowed to do so in any of the appropriations bills, and if we are going to be here through the weekend, as the gentleman may suggest, why isn't it we couldn't take that time to debate the DOD bill in an open and full, transparent manner?

I yield.

I didn't hear the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

I will say to the gentleman, obviously, with much disappointment, and I think really reflecting the disappointment on the part of the American people, that we should be having a much more robust debate on these issues. Certainly, if we are going to be addressing the issue of health care, and the gentleman says that his side is insistent on rushing back to the floor, insisting on some political deadline, then I don't understand why it is we couldn't have an open debate on some of the other issues if we are going to be waiting around here until next Monday or Tuesday.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Offered By: Mr. Cantor

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 524. None of the funds appropriated or made available

under this Act may be used by the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting to find that the broadcast of a religious

service by a recipient of Community Service Grants is in

violation of the eligibility criteria for community service

grants.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs and families are desperately seeking employment, this Congress and this administration have made job creation a secondary concern. As a result, they have squandered a golden opportunity to put people back to work.

Frankly, the American people have just had enough. They have had enough of a stimulus bill that has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and not staved off job loss. They have had enough of the national energy tax that will impose extraordinary job-killing taxes on the people of this country. And now, Mr. Speaker, they have had enough of talk of a health care bill that not only will fail to deliver the access and quality that we need, but it will cripple small businesses by imposing an 8 percent payroll tax on them.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Where are the jobs? Congress and this administration have been asleep for too long--and we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the minority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he could give me some indication of the progress on the offer of compromise to move forward on appropriations bills to get us back closer to what has been the precedent of this House in terms of open rules in consideration of expending taxpayer moneys.

I would note, as we are almost nearing the end of the July session and with three appropriations bills left, there is yet limited opportunity, but still some, and the minority stands ready and willing to work with the gentleman, with him and his desire, as

is mine, to return to an open process in appropriations rules.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that. I would ask the gentleman if he could give us some sense of where we are in terms of the health care reform bill working its way through the committee process right now. As the gentleman knows, I'm on the Ways and Means Committee; and we completed our markup on the bill last night or in the early hours this morning. The other two committees I know are hard at work in terms of delivering their products. But I did note that the gentleman was reported as having said in the press--I believe it was this morning in his response to a question about the Congressional Budget Office's commentary and analysis of the health care proposal. Mr. Speaker, if I could loosely paraphrase the gentleman's remarks, I believe he said, We need to go back to the drawing board as far as the scoring of the bill is concerned. I would like to inquire about what the gentleman had in mind as far as that's concerned.

I thank the gentleman. I know the gentleman does share all of our concerns as well as, I'm sure, the President's concern that we actually do something to bring down health care costs while at the same time preserving the quality of care that the Americans who do have health care coverage right now receive. I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, does he expect the House and the American public to have 72 hours to read the entire bill once the committee process has concluded and prior to the bill's coming to the floor for a vote?

Yes, I did.

I thank the gentleman for that. I know the gentleman shares my concern with the reality that took place around the stimulus bill and around the 300-some-odd page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill that was rushed to the floor, having come out of the Rules Committee with an extensive manager's amendment without the ability for anyone in this House to read the manager's amendment and the bill in its entirety. I do think--and I think the gentleman would agree with me--that it is in the interest of the American public, and it is their right to know that we do give adequate time for the Members to read the bill as well as for the American public.

Well, I thank the gentleman for that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I will then turn to the issue surrounding the stimulus debate and really a related issue to what the gentleman had referred to as far as the scoring on the health care bill and that is the continuing concern over the exploding debt and what we are doing in this Congress and the impact that expanding the debt load of this country will have on America's families. I do know the gentleman has indicated a notice for a PAYGO bill for next week. I would like to ask the gentleman whether this bill will be identical to that which has been introduced by the members of the Blue Dog Coalition. I think the chief sponsor on that bill might be the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

I thank the gentleman. Without delving into a rehash, perhaps, of past fiscal practices or whether Vice President Cheney's remarks may have been taken out of context, I would ask the gentleman again, is the bill that will be brought to the floor identical to that which he indicates he signed on to and that which is being sponsored by the chief sponsor, the gentleman from Indiana?

I will just end my comments by indicating that I have read some reports which say--perhaps inaccurately reported or not--that the bill that you expect to come to the floor will not include the discretionary spending cap. The cap certainly would be a necessary thing to limit the double-digit increases that we're seeing in spending this Congress and the appropriations bills that have been coming to the floor. So I will indicate to the gentleman that we certainly will be supportive of those types of commonsense spending caps.

The gentleman knows we are in extraordinary economic times, and we have got tremendous job loss, and we've got a debt burden that continues to amass that may very well impact the ability for an investment-led recovery.

I would indicate to the gentleman we stand ready to work with him in trying to return to some sense of fiscal sanity in this body.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Madam Speaker, this is our first colloquy since the July 4 recess, and we are scheduled to be in session for 3 more weeks before the next recess. So, Madam Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman if he could give us a sense of what will be considered on the floor beyond next week.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the Senate is scheduled to be in session 1 week longer than we are in the House, and I ask the gentleman if he expects us or anticipates our working into August, as the Senate is scheduled to do.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Speaking of rules, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman for the ongoing dialogue that he and I have had over the last several weeks regarding how the House will go forward in terms of deliberating on appropriations bills. I sincerely express my gratitude for his engagement, his patience and the back and forth; and I know that we have been unsuccessful thus far in getting to what I believe is a mutually desirable goal, which is to return to the precedents of the House in terms of open rules surrounding appropriations bills.

Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, he has noticed two approps bills for next week, and I would like to ask him, what kind of rules does he expect these bills to be considered under?

I do want to, again, express my gratitude for his belief, as a former appropriator, that we ought to be operating under open rules and an open process when we are talking about deliberating and executing our constitutionally mandated role of expending and authorizing taxpayer dollars. And I do know that the gentleman shares my belief that we ought to get there. And I do also know and the gentleman has been very forthright in telling me and the leader on our side about his desire to want to get the work done of the people. I don't think that we disagree on trying to get the work done. I do believe, though, that we do owe to the American public the ability to see our work and the ability to have a full discussion on the separate issues that surround each appropriations bill. As the gentleman knows even more than many in this House, as he has served here and on the Appropriations Committee, the precedents of the House is open rules. And he and I have had discussions about what, perhaps, our party did when it was in the majority. During the Republican majority, the most appropriations bills ever to be considered under a restrictive rule during any one year was in 1997 when there were four bills discussed under a restricted rule. Again, that was in 1997. As the gentleman knows, so far this year--it's his party in the majority--there have been six bills that have been deliberated and discussed and debated under a restricted rule, and we, seemingly, are on track for 12.

Again, I know from the gentleman's discussions with me that we agree that we need to be under an open process. But as the gentleman has told me, it is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has basically overruled nearly all of us here in the House. And essentially, Madam Speaker, it seems that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee closed down the process again this week, prevented Members on our side and the other side from exercising their constitutional duties while disenfranchising the millions of American citizens that they represent. So I, for the life of me, don't understand how it is that any individual, much less the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is content to spend the taxpayer dollars without allowing there to be a full and open debate. In fact, I would bring a quote to the majority leader's attention from the gentleman from Wisconsin from October 6, 2000, when Mr. Obey of Wisconsin said, in the context of discussing the need for open and full debate, ``We have gotten so far from regular order that I fear that if this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to its precedence and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term representative democracy.'' He went on to say, ``The reason that we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate; and we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called ``the greatest deliberative body left in the world.'' And I say that and I bring that to the gentleman's attention for exactly the point of what he and I have been trying to achieve. Let's open up the process. Again, bearing in mind, Madam Speaker, the gentleman's goal of trying to finish the work, I know that he knows--I have represented--I will do all we can; and we on this side feel that we can meet his time frame. I would ask the gentleman if he is still in the posture of being able to deliver the ability for us to have the choice of the amendments that we offer. So if we were to now say--and I'm willing to offer this to the gentleman--if we were to say, fine, as the gentleman suggested 2 months ago outside the precedents of the House, if we were to agree to time limits, then we could have the ability to offer the amendments and have full and open discussion on the appropriations bills, as he had asked several months ago; and I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I thank the gentleman from California. He really echoes the remarks, I think, and my sense in the beginning of this discussion many, many weeks ago that he and I have spoken, as well as spoken with the gentleman from Maryland. I do think the gentleman from Maryland agrees.

But I would just leave this subject, Mr. Speaker, with that fact that the gentleman from Maryland has said he will get back to me in terms of the offer that is on the table. And as he may know, and certainly the chairman of the Appropriations Committee does know, that in the year 2007, when the Republicans became the minority, it took 23.3 days to discuss appropriations bills for a total of 170\1/4\ hours. If we compare that, and I'm sure that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee does know this, or could find this out, in 1995, the first year that his party took minority status or was relegated to that status, the appropriations bills took 31 days and 205 hours. So we are not talking about anything other than the Record here, and the Record indicates the minority in 1995 took a lot more time than we did in 2007.

Now, in keeping with the gentleman from Maryland's desire to get the work done, the gentleman from California says he shares that, as do I, as does our leader, as does our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. We are committed to doing that. I look forward to the gentleman's return in terms of the offer that I have expressed. And my friend, the gentleman from California, I will yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we are wondering on this side, having read the news reports, having listened to the gentleman this past Sunday on FOX News about his, in my opinion, refreshing comments about his disappointment as to where we are in this economy and the stimulus that was supposed to have addressed this economy. Again, ``refreshing'' not because the economy is bad, but simply because I think there is a recognition that the ``stimulus'' bill, that it was called, that passed has not delivered on the promise that this administration made about keeping unemployment down.

I would ask, since we see unemployment nearing 10 percent, since the promises that were made of the stimulus bill was that we would stave off that unemployment, and it would be no higher than 8\1/2\ percent, I would ask the gentleman if he expects to be able to return to the subject and be able to put in place a plan to really do something to create or foster an environment to create jobs, or should I believe the reports that I am reading that perhaps we are going to have yet another stimulus bill the likes of which we have already seen that has not worked?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and just say historical facts can be applied and used at will, and that there were plenty of opportunities to point and cast blame and claim credit as there were Republican Congresses and Democratic Presidential administrations and the like. So we could go on for a long time about the past.

My point, Mr. Speaker, in posing the question to the gentleman is as a result of the mere fact that promises were made by this administration, goals were set. We were told this stimulus bill, if we were to act in haste, the way this Congress acted, and in fact no one in this body read that bill of 1,100 pages, we were told if we were to pass that bill and it were to be signed into law that unemployment in this country would not exceed 8.5 percent. As we know, as the gentleman knows, in many parts of the country it is well in excess of 10 percent. Nationally, we are on the way to 10 percent.

We must and should, Mr. Speaker, in this House do all we can to try and get this economy back on track. It is not that we should repeat the mistakes of the past in that stimulus bill, and we await the administration, the gentleman's prescription as to how to address, as he says, the very real pain that America's families are experiencing.

I thank the gentleman, and in closing, I would leave the gentleman with two points: one, the plan that the House Republicans put on the table and presented to this President was focused on small businesses. If he looks at that plan as the President did, and the President clearly said there is nothing crazy in this plan, which meant that these are things that could work.

The President also, to my second point, claimed that we may have philosophical differences on tax policy and the rest, but he said to me, ``I won.'' So it is, Mr. Speaker, this President's and this Congress's economy. We stand ready and willing to proffer up yet again our plan to address the economic woes of the American families. We have a plan that would be at half the cost of that stimulus bill and produce twice the jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us provides $2.22 billion worth of vital security assistance to the State of Israel, our most dependable and democratic ally in the Middle East. The funding in this bill will help ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military advantage in the region. That means Israel can defend itself against the existential threat posed by Iran and against Iranian terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, both sworn to Israel's destruction.

A strong Israel means a more stable Middle East. A weakened Israel only gives momentum to the radicals in the region determined to sow discord and harm U.S. interests. Joint cooperation with Israel has also yielded tangible benefits to America since Israel is a leader in methods of fighting terrorism and preventing civilian casualties in terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that Israel is a pillar in the national security interests of the United States, and it is, in my opinion, essential that we provide this assistance to Israel because it is in the best interests of the United States. That's why I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.